Like fellow progressive caucus member Peter DeFazio (Oregon) before him, Tom Udall (New Mexico) has opted out of a run for Senate. Both would have had excellent chances. A February poll for the DSCC found DeFazio already ahead of Gordon Smith 42%--38% in a pretty blue state. New Mexico is an open seat in a slightly lean-Democratic state, and Udall reports $712K cash on hand as of June 30th.
These were two seats where Republicans could have been replaced with very, very solid, progressive Democrats. In fact, despite their tendency to recruit Bush Dogs, these were even cases where the Schumer led DSCC would have been happy--if not eager--to have progressives in the race. As an active member of the Blue Majority fundraising page, I would have been personally eager to endorse either one, and I imagine the folks at Blue America would have felt the same way. Jonathan Singer, another member of Blue Majority, was active in both Draft DeFazio and Draft Tom Udall (I believe he founded the later). Basically, everything was in place for these two: very winnable races where they would start in the lead, plus lots of establishment and grassroots support to back them up along the way. They could have replicated Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown in 2006, no problem. And yet they both passed.
At Open Left, we spend a good deal of time criticizing Bush Dogs. However, let me pause for a moment to criticize progressive caucus members. We simply can't build a more progressive Senate if progressive caucus members keep passing up opportunities to run for higher office. If progressives keep passing up on runs at higher office, should we be surprised that the Democrats who end up in higher office are often less than progressive? This is a failure of progressive leadership at the highest levels. I am well aware of the way conservative Democrats are often recruited for Senate by our existing leadership, but the DSCC does not share the entire blame here. In fact, in at least DeFazio's case, they really wanted the progressive to run, as demonstrated by releasing a poll showing the Defazio--Smith trial heat. I can't imagine they would have been opposed to Udall running, either.
We can't build a more progressive Democratic Party if progressive Democrats don't run for higher office. The double DeFazio and Udall let down are extremely disappointing. Honestly, it lowers not only my opinion of both men, but also of the congressional progressive caucus itself. This is a group of representatives who have a huge natural activist base and many great political opportunities to shine, but they consistently fail to step up to the plate. Media bias is not the only reason we hear more about the Blue Dogs than we hear about the caucuses in Congress. Part of it is that they are constantly trumpeting their own ability to stall legislation, their own ideology, and taking advantages of the opportunities presented to them to run for higher office. Progressives just are not doing the same things, at least to the same degrees. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is full of Democrats who could make activists feel a lot better about the party, but they are doing little to provide us with that feeling. They need to start stepping up more--a lot more-and one of the areas to start would be to take advantage of Senate campaigns where you would actually start in the lead.
Show some leadership, please. We are in desperate need of it.
